Good post. I am an admirer of her. She is extremely intelligent woman.

When it come to anti-Islamist I am with you bro - all the way. What I do not share with you and glich is your blind obedience to anything which has "Conservative" tag stick to it, and disdain to anything labeled "Liberal"

Good post. I am an admirer of her. She is extremely intelligent woman.

When it come to anti-Islamist I am with you bro - all the way. What I do not share with you and glich is your blind obedience to anything which has "Conservative" tag stick to it, and disdain to anything labeled "Liberal"

Actually, you want to retract this, she said Trumps Ban was good. or did you not listen. you're all the way with nobody because you can't stop Bashing Trump. i doubt Centaur believes a word you say, and Hombre, the reason you can't hear it is the sound is faulty, and lowered. He's making a joke and doing an impression, which he does ALL the time.

oh, and if you are right, why isn't this paraded around as Truth and a direct example. He's doing Clinton's voice.

Dear "comrade" glitch,It is obvious that my comment to "Brother" centaur went right over your head.

Back in 2004 a Somalian born Ayaan Hirshi Ali, she was member of Dutch parliament, when advised Theo Van Gough with making of his famous document " Submission" which depict the degree with which women are mistreated in Islamic countries.

As result he was stabbed to death by a Moroccan immigrant in broad day light, and she was threatened with death. That prompted her to seek asylum here in US. She is vocal about Islam & its insidious impact on Muslims. She is the mother of all anti-Muslims.

I never argued against her anti-Islamic fervour. She simply supports ANY ban on Muslim by any leader - not just Trump. Besides, I don't object to Trump WHAT he does to Muslims - rather HOW he does.

I still maintain my position about Trump. He is facked up individual, and with his one sided capricious and ignorance, he will bring us to doorsteps of nuclear war.

Hombre wrote:Dear "comrade" glitch,It is obvious that my comment to "Brother" centaur went right over your head.

Back in 2004 a Somalian born Ayaan Hirshi Ali, she was member of Dutch parliament, when advised Theo Van Gough with making of his famous document " Submission" which depict the degree with which women are mistreated in Islamic countries.

As result he was stabbed to death by a Moroccan immigrant in broad day light, and she was threatened with death. That prompted her to seek asylum here in US. She is vocal about Islam & its insidious impact on Muslims. She is the mother of all anti-Muslims.

I never argued against her anti-Islamic fervour. She simply supports ANY ban on Muslim by any leader - not just Trump. Besides, I don't object to Trump WHAT he does to Muslims - rather HOW he does.

I still maintain my position about Trump. He is facked up individual, and with his one sided capricious and ignorance, he will bring us to doorsteps of nuclear war.

Wow Really, i never knew... i nev--sorry Hombre, can't really stomache that you feel you must explain something to me that i dont know who she is.

At the same time, wow, once again, you're a two faced hypocrite.

i never knew isrealis cared so much, exactly enough though to keep on hating Trump.

Suppose a teacher writes something on the board, and he hears people talking. He asks "who was talking just then?" and predictably nobody owns up. So he gives the whole class a detention. Clearly this is not fair.

This is how I see a blanket ban, based on a nationality. Ideally, each case for immigration should be assessed on its own merits, so that people who are genuinely persecuted get a refuge. For example, some man genuinely flees fro his life from Iran or similar place, say, because he is gay, and he faces execution because of that. Hombre provided another such example.

But there is also the reality that people who seek to do us harm and abuse our willingness to help. When it comes to a situation where a president has to make a choice between helping others and protecting his own people, then things are in a bad way. There is no way you can genuinely give asylum if you end up putting your own citizens at risk, as well as those who came to ask for asylum in the first themselves, so the "ban" is a reasonable measure if it is a temporary one, and at the same time serious efforts are made to find ways to separate the real from the false asylum seekers.

It is that part about his ban that worries me. In implementing it, he clearly admits there is a problem, which is much more than the EU would do. But what is he doing to address that problem?

If his ban is the answer to that, then it is unjust. But if his ban is like heart surgeon's act to stop the heart for a while to carry out an operation, then it is a good thing.

The ban can buy him a few months perhaps to get a better solution, but it cannot be and should not be the solution itself.

glitch wrote:Wow Really, i never knew... i nev--sorry Hombre, can't really stomache that you feel you must explain something to me that i dont know who she is

There are lots of thing you don't know. So stay here and learn..

At the same time, wow, once again, you're a two faced hypocrite.

come up with better excuse to demonstrate your utter ignorance - particularly in regards to Trump & his family

i never knew isrealis cared so much, exactly enough though to keep on hating Trump.

Anyone - not only Israelis, hate leaders who constantly lie to them.

Otherwise, It is clear to everyone here that, you don't read or watch credible publication to see what happening around you. So keep your head in the sand and blindly support traitor who colluded with hostile country to destroy our democracy, Keep supporting this lying scumbag.

glitch wrote:Wow Really, i never knew... i nev--sorry Hombre, can't really stomache that you feel you must explain something to me that i dont know who she is

There are lots of thing you don't know. So stay here and learn..

At the same time, wow, once again, you're a two faced hypocrite.

come up with better excuse to demonstrate your utter ignorance - particularly in regards to Trump & his family

i never knew isrealis cared so much, exactly enough though to keep on hating Trump.

Anyone - not only Israelis, hate leaders who constantly lie to them.

Otherwise, It is clear to everyone here that, you don't read or watch credible publication to see what happening around you. So keep your head in the sand and blindly support traitor who colluded with hostile country to destroy our democracy, Keep supporting this lying scumbag.

Hombre, i know who she is. I know her story. i like her. you don;t know sh!t about me. allyou have ever said to me is the same thing, you've degraded me and said, all i do is watch Hannity. My information does not come from Hannity, youll excuse your idiotic self if i tell you for tghe upteenth time, i don't get my information from hannity.

Secondly, you can stow you're better than me talk right now. All you do is tout the same media bias, you as much said so in your posts, all i have to do is let you tak and you reveal where your motives are. Hillary Clinton... Just keep spouting the same BS, All you do is assume i['m stupid and that other voters are stupd, thanks for talking down to us. We really need your susper elite left guidance because we're clearly too dumb to know what to do ourselves, thank you or super smart ass for being there to talk down to us.

No one here on this forum denigrates you more then you do it to yourself. Perhaps English is not your mother tongue - neither is mine. Nonetheless, we all make minimum effort to present our ideas in manner which others can read and understand.

Repeatedly you were advised to install a spellcheck onto your browser - yet your ignore it and keep write grossly misspelled words, which make it difficult to read or understand your comments.

Here. Go to this site and download the spellcheck for your browser. Use the "preview" option on bottom to proof read your comments before you click the "submit" tag.

(misspelled words automatically underlined with red lines. Right-click on the word then chose the correctly spelled one). that what we all do. After you had done it. repost your last comment and I will reply to them appropriately

manfred wrote:If his ban is the answer to that, then it is unjust. But if his ban is like heart surgeon's act to stop the heart for a while to carry out an operation, then it is a good thing.

Please explain what exactly is unjust about an interdict on immigration.

manfred wrote:The ban can buy him a few months perhaps to get a better solution, but it cannot be and should not be the solution itself.

The solution, or at least a meaningful start, is an immediate and indefinite ban on all 3rd world immigration and deportation of all illegal aliens. It is the paramount duty of all leadership and citizenry to defend and preserve western civilization for those who have sacrificed their lives and for future generations.

There is nothing more selfish or unjust than to casually discard something so precious in mad devotion to suicidal egalitarianism.

I did not say the interdict was unjust per se, if that is what is needed. However, the US has always also been a place of refuge for the persecuted around the world, and it is part of the way the US sees itself. What does it say on the statue of liberty again?

What I would consider unjust is if because of people who otherwise may do harm to others persecuted people are for ever deprived a refuge.

Somehow the US government should strive to do BOTH of these: keep the people at home safe from terror attacks and also allow genuine refugees a place to come. This is very difficult to achieve, and if in the current situation it is deemed impossible, then I would also support Trump's ban. I am in no position to assess this, so I have to accept the judgement of the president on this assuming he he well informed.

What I do not support is a blanket "ban" designed for perpetuity, as the permanent apparent solution to terror attacks. First, it would make a joke of any serious asylum policy, by suggesting you can only be a persecuted person if you come from a list of approved counties, and all others are "fake". Second, it is not a very good solution to the terror problem anyway, as many attackers are in reality already inside the country. I may help, sure, but it is not a solution. But perhaps the US government can and will find something better all round.

manfred,Here I will have somewhat agree with Equestrian's central thesis. You mentioned "persecuted muslims". My friend - ALL MUSLIMS ARE PERSECUTED by their own religious dogma. Does it mean we have to absorb all?

Please look at this photo.Instead of finding other less traffic places to pray - they block traffic in one of the busiest (Dallas) airport, with utter disregard to others.

What conclusion one can derive here?. Muslims are sending a clear message that THEY ARE IN CONTROL in Christian- majority country.

Do we see any other religious or ethnic group act same as Muslims do - no they don't. The problem with Muslims is not helping persecuted people, rather, their attitude of force their religious belief on locals, once their numbers increase.

I am sorry I should have made it clearer: I was talking about people who happen to have been born or live in a Muslim country like Iran or Saudi Arabia, but who for certain reasons have fallen foul of the establishment there and whose lives are in danger as a result:

A woman who has committed adultery for example, or a gay man, or any person who has expressed views Islam sees as "blasphemous" or who has decided to change or abandon their religion.

Suppose a woman accused of adultery by her husband has managed by some chance to get away to another country. What should happen to her? Should she really be sent back in order to be publicly stoned?

What about a woman who faces an "honour killing" by her family in Pakistan? You would want to help her, surely?

There are some who want to escape persecution by Muslims, because their do not fit the image what a Muslim should be.

We have all met people like those in the picture. But these are hardly "refugees"... they are in the US for a completely different reason, some merely for economic gain, but many to push around their host societies, as you rightly point out. I doubt they would feel the need to make such an exhibition of themselves in their home country.

I did not say the interdict was unjust per se, if that is what is needed. However, the US has always also been a place of refuge for the persecuted around the world, and it is part of the way the US sees itself. What does it say on the statue of liberty again?

What I would consider unjust is if because of people who otherwise may do harm to others persecuted people are for ever deprived a refuge.

Somehow the US government should strive to do BOTH of these: keep the people at home safe from terror attacks and also allow genuine refugees a place to come. This is very difficult to achieve, and if in the current situation it is deemed impossible, then I would also support Trump's ban. I am in no position to assess this, so I have to accept the judgement of the president on this assuming he he well informed.

What I do not support is a blanket "ban" designed for perpetuity, as the permanent apparent solution to terror attacks. First, it would make a joke of any serious asylum policy, by suggesting you can only be a persecuted person if you come from a list of approved counties, and all others are "fake". Second, it is not a very good solution to the terror problem anyway, as many attackers are in reality already inside the country. I may help, sure, but it is not a solution. But perhaps the US government can and will find something better all round.

The allure of Marxist propaganda is intoxicating to the naive egalitarian, it is a shame that you are so easily seduced.

The US has never, in its history, been a place for the persecuted around the world. In fact, this revisionist understanding of America as a nation of immigrants is a recent invention of the 1960's counter-culture movement. America has always been recognized as a nation founded by English colonists; its institutions created by English enlightenment thinkers, not some hodge-podge collection of "we are the world" immigrants.

The saying on the statue of liberty is a poem written by Emma Lazarus entitled The New Colossus. Lazarus wrote the poem to depict the statue of liberty as a symbol of the United States as a refuge for the poor and persecuted of Europe, not the world, and it was widely recognized as such. She wrote this poem at a time when migration to America had been almost exclusively European. Immigration had been predominantly European up until the 1960's.

I don't think you fully appreciate the immigration crises in both Europe and North America. At current immigration rates in Europe, African and Arab populations will be the majority in many European nations in less than a century. Do you even consider the consequences? Do you think the ruling Emir of France will have any compassion for refugees or concern for the environment? moreover, how do you think the minority non-Muslim indigenous populations of England, Belgium, Sweden and Germany will be treated under Sharia Law? Europe has condemned its future generations with a legacy of misery, strife and despair, and all for what? so you can congratulate yourselves for being such good welcoming people.

This is the result of your compassion for so-called refugees. Paris, a place where one can experience the unique culture of France.

it seems we are talking about two different things, passed each other. You speak of immigration and issues around that, and I have few issues with you on that at all, if any. However I was mentioning GENUINE refugees, escaping persecutions for things we would not face sanctions for in our own societies, much less the death penalty. Do we not have a duty for the genuinely oppressed?

Sure, immigration is a problem, but does that mean we must abandon our own values to deal with that? Can we not try to deal with the immigration issue without also being callous to the suffering of others?

Why would it be acceptable to also "ban" the VICTIMS of Islam? The crazy part is we first allow people in quite indiscriminately, and then suddenly try to prevent people from coming based on merely their place of birth.

This is the trouble with knee-jerks.... one leads to another. and ever more forcefully. Extreme measures will always invite extreme counter-measures. He will not be president for ever, so the most important person to convince of his actions is his successor.

Sure, let Trump have his "ban". But, as far as I understand, he himself does not see that as the "answer" to all issues around immigration. He said is temporary, to "see what is going on" as he puts it.

Yes, I do know what goes on, all the lies and fake refugees, you can hardly miss it. But imagine an insurance company who says "we will never ever pay any claim, as we have been cheated too many times." Is it still an insurance company?

So, to make it clear, I don't speak of all the fake refugees, they also need to be deal with, and the endless steam must be stopped. I meant the REAL ones, the people who run away from some Islamic hell hole in fear of their lives. These are not coming in their thousands, perhaps in their tens, at most. Surely we still have enough human kindness to find some help for them. Even if immigration is not on offer, there other things that can be done.

When Mohammed went to what was called later Medina, he went to take the place over, which he managed to do, violently. He should have been stopped.

While at Medina, a very few of hos followers realised what he really was, and they ran away, and the people of Mecca took them in again. And this was fair on them.

The trouble is, the Muslim world is a generator of a constant stream of refugees because of the incessant fighting. Most of the refugees are fleeing not because they are persecuted but because they are living in hell-holes of their leaders' making.

‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

it seems we are talking about two different things, passed each other. You speak of immigration and issues around that, and I have few issues with you on that at all, if any. However I was mentioning GENUINE refugees, escaping persecutions for things we would not face sanctions for in our own societies, much less the death penalty. Do we not have a duty for the genuinely oppressed?

Sure, immigration is a problem, but does that mean we must abandon our own values to deal with that? Can we not try to deal with the immigration issue without also being callous to the suffering of others?

Why would it be acceptable to also "ban" the VICTIMS of Islam? The crazy part is we first allow people in quite indiscriminately, and then suddenly try to prevent people from coming based on merely their place of birth.

This is the trouble with knee-jerks.... one leads to another. and ever more forcefully. Extreme measures will always invite extreme counter-measures. He will not be president for ever, so the most important person to convince of his actions is his successor.

Sure, let Trump have his "ban". But, as far as I understand, he himself does not see that as the "answer" to all issues around immigration. He said is temporary, to "see what is going on" as he puts it.

Yes, I do know what goes on, all the lies and fake refugees, you can hardly miss it. But imagine an insurance company who says "we will never ever pay any claim, as we have been cheated too many times." Is it still an insurance company?

So, to make it clear, I don't speak of all the fake refugees, they also need to be deal with, and the endless steam must be stopped. I meant the REAL ones, the people who run away from some Islamic hell hole in fear of their lives. These are not coming in their thousands, perhaps in their tens, at most. Surely we still have enough human kindness to find some help for them. Even if immigration is not on offer, there other things that can be done.

When Mohammed went to what was called later Medina, he went to take the place over, which he managed to do, violently. He should have been stopped.

While at Medina, a very few of hos followers realised what he really was, and they ran away, and the people of Mecca took them in again. And this was fair on them.

We as citizens of a nation have no civic duty to aid those of another. The highest duty of a nations government is to defend, preserve and maintain the interests of its own citizens, specifically culture, tradition and heritage. That is not to say we as a nation ought not provide aid to foreigners in need, but we absolutely must not do it at the expense of our own interests. Yet, this is exactly what we have been doing.

Western governments have abandoned their highest duty and replaced it with, in your words, the "duty for the genuinely oppressed". With this new paradigm shift in duty, it is no wonder that the citizenry, along with their culture, tradition and heritage, are actively being replaced. And this is all done in a single-minded, crazed-driven scramble for the egalitarian ideal.

It's easy to moralize on your armchair in the comfort of your home away from communities effected by foreign immigration, criticizing immigration policy and chastising those who demand solutions you find knee-jerk or extreme. The situation is extreme and the consequences are dire, and any policy directed at addressing this crises must take precedence over the egalitarian ideal.

Your opposition to Trumps immigration policy shows that you value this ideal above the survival of western civilization. To be sure, Trumps immigration policy is not perfect, however to pretend that its some kind of extreme measure is absurd. Despite its flaws, Trumps immigration policy is a start. It also signals to the American people that the government finally acknowledges their concerns with immigration and will enact polices for the interests of its citizens, above the globalist elites. This is a drastic departure from the previous administration, in which Americans had been constantly berated as racists, islamophobes and bigots by their own government.

The fact is that at this point there can be no perfect policy or measure to resolve the immigration crises. As Douglas Murray noted, the immigration crises should have been addressed decades ago. And with that, I leave you with another sober analysis from Murray.

"...the civilisation we know as Europe is committing suicide...as a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home."

a) I have not said I oppose Trump's immigration policy. I did say that the so-called "ban" is not seen even by Trump himself as a solution to all issues around immigration. And the point I was trying to make was not about immigration at all.

b) This part saddens me:

We as citizens of a nation have no civic duty to aid those of another. The highest duty of a nations government is to defend, preserve and maintain the interests of its own citizens, specifically culture, tradition and heritage.

So, what exactly is this culture, tradition and heritage, if it is nothing to do with caring for others? Are sharp elbows, metal toe caps, callous self-interest even to the point of allowing other to die, are those the Christian values you seem to hint at? What will we preserve by giving up the thing that makes our culture?

Allowing ourselves to be over-run is not preserving our culture, but abandoning the values it is built on does not do it either. Also "the highest duty" does not mean there are no other duties. Also, we live in a world where we are all interconnected, and actions as well as omissions have a habit of "returning to sender".

It's easy to moralize on your armchair in the comfort of your home away from communities effected by foreign immigration,

I live in central London, hardly "away from communities affected by immigration". I am not "moralizing", you really know little about me.

The fact is that at this point there can be no perfect policy or measure to resolve the immigration crises. As Douglas Murray noted, the immigration crises should have been addressed decades ago. And with that, I leave you with another sober analysis from Murray.

That part I agree with. However, we cannot change the past, so we need to start with where we are. It cannot have a perfect solution. This also means it cannot have a simple solution. It needs much more than what Trump has done. As I keep saying I do not even oppose his "ban", but I expect him to use the time this gives him to come up with something much better than that.

In accepting immigration into the country, too many moitives are at work to make a simple argument. Certainly compassion for the persecuted is behind a small part of it. There is also perhaps an unrealistic wish to cure the world's ills by inviting much of the world's population to our bosom. There are other motives too: crass commercialism seeking to import cheap or pre-educated labour on the one hand and a pseudo-religious zeal on the Left to find an underclass to support their ideology - and provide votes. Nor should we forget the lunatic mentality of many politicians who think that the more populous the country, the better it is and that a larger economy is good even if the per-capita economy has remained static - or even shrunk- at the same time.

‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

A short and concise description, Fernando, which I entirely agree with. There is perhaps one dimension to the issue that also deserves a mention: some immigration is entirely beneficial and even needed. One example would be that London's schools simply would not be able to function without the existence of the "supply teacher" pool, most of them are here temporarily, from other countries. We get a similar picture in the NHS.

What is needed is a decent policy to MANAGE immigration in a way that benefits society. This is easy to say, but much harder to work out. It is the mismanagement of this issue for decades that generates problems, and which is behind the calls for quick fixes.